SDF: Do you think "commodifying" the environment is really a solution to the problems of "unsustainable business"? Since every human being has an environmental impact upon the planet, from birth to death, what will it mean to commodify these impacts? Will every baby have to pay for breathing someone else's air and pay for the disposal of her diapers from the moment of birth? Can businesses survive if they can't externalize pollution costs? Will governments compete to attract business by offering cheap pollution rights?SK: I said a 'theoretic' way of solving the problem. The problems with
carrying it out in practice are many, like you show. But is it desirable? If we imagine a world where the right to pollute is something that must be bought like everything else, those who get success is as you correctly state those who allow cheap pollution. If a nation allowed pollution very cheaply, it would attract businesses and ultimately kill itself in a swamp of sulfuroxides. It could be pointed out that it would be in no nation would allow that to happen, but a production that affects the stratosphere would not only be affecting that nation, but the entire world. What you state about every baby having to pay for the disposal of her diapers and breathing of others' air would necessarily have to be factored into such a practice, BUT - as capitalism by its nature does - would contribute to creating social losers and winners. The wealthy can bear having to pay for personal pollution, but the poor become even poorer.
SDF: This is another example of unsustainable capitalism. The cabal of big capitalists has discovered that capitalism is unsustainable. I think they are scared witless: witness the news reports about that weird meeting in Kyoto they had.
SK: Capitalism is not at all the most desirable system, for many reasons. Capitalism leads to crises and pollution, I agree with you there. I just don't think doomsday prophecies about what will finally destroy capitalism is a good idea. Most people who have done that have been disappointed.
SDF: I remember reading, during the Cold War (in Holly Sklar's TRILATERALISM, I think), that humankind was using existing reserves of uranium faster than it was using existing reserves of oil. I have no idea what the rates of consumption are now. I suspect that, somewhere down the line, there will be some great worldwide rush to get off the oil-consumption boat once the status quo geopolitics of world oil is seriously disrupted.
SK: But today there is not yet much to support such a theory. Witness
Russia, Europe, the USA and Japan competing for the rights to draw oil from the former Soviet republic Kazakhstan's reserves. This will furthermore make the 'winning' nation independent of the Arabian reserves.
But no matter how much oil we find, oil is by its nature in a finite
supply. Whether they want it or not, we MUST eventually get off oil
consumption. But can capitalism continue to exist without?
SDF: Can you publicly display the plans, the scheme for how this creation of energy self-sufficiency for Denmark, will be done? Keep in mind that petroleum exploration is not merely the source of energy, but also of plastics, roads, etc. etc.
SK: The idea was displayed on the Socialist Unity List's website and has been adapted by the People's Socialist Party. I have emailed the Unity List about the actual plans and will post it on this forum when they reply. The fact that petroleum is used in plastic production was what made me sceptical at first too, but you should know that ways of synthesizing it do exist - but to my knowledge not yet without polluting. As promised, I will post the plans when the Unity List replies.
SDF: If these "problems and unbalances" don't seriously disrupt the
capitalist system, then what's going to be "actually done" about capitalism? Seriously!
SK: You misunderstood me. Of course they disrupt the system, otherwise
there would not be much point in bringing them up in a discussion. But I still think that capitalism has so far proven capable of many reforms to save itself and that it will not _automatically_ come to an end. To end capitalism, people must _consciously_ work for its end instead of waiting for it to end itself. If we do that, capitalism WILL end itself, but in doing that it has already ended the environment and most likely the human race.
SDF: On the one hand, do you think there will be no real environmental impact when the Chinese really start to achieve their version of the "American Dream", or do you think capitalism will survive that? Think of a billion people using old Freon-using refrigeration, what that will do for the ozone layer.
SK: Well, I must admit that I find it a step in the wrong direction when ANY nation gets closer to the American Dream. But with China, it would as you say mean a greatly destructive influence on the environment. However, I believe that if China really starts destroying the environment, it will most likely be used by propagandists to defend capitalism by telling us what "Communist China" is doing instead of showing us what the "American Dream" brings with it.
SDF: On the other hand, do you think anyone today will go anymore for the version of socialism touted in Marx's CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAM? Somehow I don't see socialism developing out of some ideal future where resources have become so plentiful that people start to abandon capitalism.
SK: Such a future is an utopia, and no, I do not believe in it. Capitalism must be abandoned for the opposite reason, namely because capitalism is not a good way to manage the Earth's resources. A conscious planning is much better for the environment because only the system that is based on the competition of the market needs to slaughter the environment like it does. The USSR did also kill its environment, but that was to a high degree because they put unrealistically high plans (to compete with the USA).
SDF's question for socialist historians: Wasn't it true that the best
opportunity for socialists in America was during the Great Depression? Somehow it seems that events in capitalism are dictating the agendas for the socialists, despite their best intentions...and I think the coming eco-crises will be promising events in this regard...
SK's answer: Actually, nothing has aided the propagation of socialism as much as capitalism. When capitalism shows its ugly face through financial crisis, imperialist wars or environmental destruction, some people adopt the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" idea and turn to socialism, recognizing that capitalism creates these crises and they stem from problems within the very system of capitalism. I do not know much about American history, but I do know that another time of great opportunity for socialists internationally was during the Vietnam war. A capitalist state had launched an imperialist war against a foreign nation they hardly knew how to pronounce the name of, and many people saw the sickness and absurdity in this. That is for example how the New Left came into being.
